I agree that the current system is easy to implement and maintain -- and that's great for the short-term. It seems that a long-term solution merits serious consideration (a solution that frees DHF-funded developers from the whims of external markets).

The disruption to DHF funding proposals seems not insignificant. It does not affect me directly, but it does affect my eagerness to submit a proposal.

I have a couple proposals in mind, but the uncertainty associated with the current de-funding of previously-funded proposals makes me question whether I should try to move those forward.

How long do you anticipate keeping previously-funded proposals at zero?

If the answer is "until the price stabilizes" then a more robust solution should be sought. The solution I've suggested is merely one of many possible solutions.

A solution that does not involve coding, but requires active changing of votes, would be to implement the current stabilization protocol intermittently, thus allowing the previously-funded proposals to be 'overpaid' for a time, then unpaid for a time. Maybe that's the current plan?